Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2005]60SCL496(All)
K.A. Puj, J.1. The petitioner, namely, Khimji Sanabhai Parmar has filed this petition under Section 433(e) read with Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 for winding up of the respondent Company, namely, M/s. Sevalia Cement Works, unit of M/s. Manor Investment Private Limited.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was a workman and was regularly working in the respondent Company for the last many years. About 260 workers were working with the respondent Company and about 123 employees were working in Balasinor quarry, which was run and managed by the respondent Company. It is also stated that in all 400 workmen were working with the respondent and the respondent was not paying regular wages to its employees in spite of several demands, notices and directions of the Court. The petitioner and all other workers were engaged and appointed by M/s. Associate Cement Company Limited and they were working with the said Company for many years. The respondent Company was run an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2005)ILLJ399All
M. Katju and R.S. Tripathi, JJ.1. Heard Shri V.K. Barman learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 and Shri Vivek Ratan learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.2. The petitioner has prayed that a mandamus be issued directing the respondents not to realize any contribution under the E.S.I. Act from the workmen of respondent No. 3. We are of the opinion that there is no merit in the submission of the petitioner. The E.S.I. Act clearly applies to the establishment of respondent No. 3. As has been stated in para 11 of the counter-affidavit, no application for exemption from the Act has been filed by any body nor any exemption has been granted. As regards the plea that there is discrimination between the employees of respondent No. 3 and employees of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and K.E.S.A., Kanpur, we are of the opinion, there is no merit in this submission also. Each establishment has its own unique problems and circumstances. Moreover, re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. The writ petitioners have approached this Court in respect of the order dated 05.04.2010, whereby respondent no.1 had directed the petitioners to submit the list of officers/employees and the further reminder dated 17.04.2010, whereby the petitioners were informed that failing which action would be taken under the provisions of the Census Act, 1948. It is the case of the writ petitioners that in response to these letters, on 26.04.2010, a reply was given by the Regional Officer stating that the Life Insurance Corporation of India is a Central Corporation created by an Act of Parliament and does not fall under the definition of Local Authority in the State. The further stand was that the Corporation is engaged in commercial services involving vital public services and deployment of their officers/employees for census will gravely hamper the business. The writ petitioners have further stated that without taking into consideration their reply and without application of mind, a directio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2001(90)FLR556]; (2001)IILLJ1059All; (2001)3UPLBEC2124
M. Katju, J. 1. Heard Shri S.K. Gupta learned counsel for appellant and Shri P. K. Pandey for respondents.2. The petitioner has challenged the Impugned order dated 23.4.2001 passed under Section 75(2B) of the Employees State Insurance Act. It appears that a notice under Section 45B of the Employees State Insurance Act was Issued to the appellant and thereafter he raised a dispute under Section 75 alleging, inter alia, that its unit was not covered by the Act and the impugned recovery was Illegal. The appellant also applied under Section 75(2B) for waiver of the deposit of 50% of the amount in question, but that application has been rejected by the impugned order, hence this appeal.3. We have carefully perused the Impugned order dated 23.4.2001 and find that no proper reasons have been given In the same for refusing the prayer for waiver of the deposit of 50%. All that has been stated in the Impugned order Is that the appellant has not been given sufficient ground for getting the waiver...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1957All384
ORDERMehrotra, J. 1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by a member of the Municipal Board, Chandausi, for a writ of quo-warranto against the opposite party Sri Om Prakash to show the authority by which he is holding the office of the member of the Municipal Board. 2. The Municipal Board Chandausi consists of 25 members including the President who is the ex-officio member of the Board. The General Elections took place on the 26th of October 1953 to elect the President and the members of the Board and the petitioner and the opposite party Om Prakash were elected members and one Sri Bhagwati Prasad was elected President of the Board. Formerly the opposite party Om Prakash was an insurance employee and on the commencement of the Life Insurance Corporation Act XXXI of 1956, i.e., on the 1st of September 1956, he became an employee of the Central Government through the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Since the 1st of September 1958 he is working a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2007(1)AWC1020
Shiv Shanker, J.1. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6742 of 2006 (Suresh Kumar Modi v. State of U.P. and Ors.) and Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6950 of 2006 (Mr. Amit Modi and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.) have been filed regarding one criminal case, therefore, both the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. In both the writ petitions it has been prayed that issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as the F.I.R.) dated 10th May, 2006 lodged against the petitioner/s at Police Station Modi Nagar, District Ghaziabad as Case Crime No. 166 of 2006, under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C.2. Heard Sri Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Udai Chandani and Sri Sikandar B. Kochar, learned Counsel appearing for thepetitioner's and learned A.G.A. as well as the Sri Brijesh Sahai and Sri B.C. Rai, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 and peru...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : I(2007)ACC177
Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.1. It is now 24 years since the respondent-employee at Kanpur, sustained a blunt injury in his right eye resulting in diminution of the vision and has still not been granted compensation.2. It is not in dispute that the respondent-worker who was referred to an Eye Surgeon at L.L.R. Hospital, Kanpur on examination of his eyes (Government Hospital) had found that there was 6/36 loss of vision in the right eye as a result of that injury. The respondent worker was thereafter referred to the Medical Board for determination of question of disability but the Medical Board was of the opinion that there was no disability due to the aforesaid injury and in consequence whereof, no loss of earning capacity, provisionally or finally.3. The respondent worker, challenged the aforesaid decision of the Board by filing an appeal as provided in Section 54A of Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 and the E.S.I. Court reversed the view of the Medical Board, placing reliance on the repor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1998)IILLJ1145All
Srivastava, J. 1. These three petitions under Section 482, Cr. P.C. involving common question of law and fact are proposed to be disposed of by a common judgment.2. In Criminal Misc. Application No. 3619 of 1982, 10 petitioners have challenged the complaint dated March 5, 1980 filed by Provident Fund Inspector, after obtaining requisite sanction for prosecution of the petitioners under Section 14A(1) of the Provident Fund Act. In the Other Petition No.3620 of 1982 similar complaint filed on January 8, 1980 has been challenged and in the third petition identical complaint against the petitioners filed on May 17,1980 has been challenged.3. The record shows that Sri. J.N.Tiwari Advocate represented the opposite party No. 1 and the opposite Party No.2 was represented by learned A.G.A. but no counter affidavit has been filed by either of them. Sri J.N.Tiwari is not present even in the revised list as such Sri Vijay Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. have b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1998(3)AWC1761; (1998)2UPLBEC1578
G.P. Mathur, J.1. These special appeals are directed against a common judgment and order dated 7.12.1993 of a learned single Judge by which Writ Petition Nos. 32651 of 1993, 18561 of 1993, 34786 of 1993, 44416 of 1993 and 32500 of 1993 filed by the respondents in the appeals were allowed and the notices dated 20.8.1993 and the termination orders dated 4.9.1993 were quashed and a further direction was issued that they shall continue on their Jobs and shall be paid their salary. Writ Petition No. 32651 of 1993 was treated as the leading case by the learned single Judge and, therefore, Special Appeal No. 34 of 1994 which is directed against the Judgment given in the aforesaid petition shall be treated as the leading appeal.2. The appellant No. 1 Indian Railway Construction Company Ltd. [for short I.R.C.O.N.) is a wholly owned Government company and carries on the business of construction of Roads, Buildings. Bridges and Railway tracking, etc. The writ petitioners (respondents in the appea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2003(3)AWC2266; [2003(97)FLR822]; (2003)IILLJ1013All
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the Award of the Labour Court dated July 30, 1996 by which the claim of the respondent No. 1, workman, has been allowed with all consequential benefits along with back wages from the date of reference till the date of Award. In addition cost has also been awarded.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that respondent No. 1 raised the industrial dispute and the appropriate Government in exercise of its power under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act 1947) made a reference as to whether termination of the services of the respondent No. 1 w.e.f. April 9, 1988 was in accordance with law, and if not, to what relief he was entitled to? In pursuance of the said reference, a claim petition was filed by the workman contending that he was engaged as an apprentice under the provisions of Apprentices Act, 1961 (hereinafter called Act 1961), as a Boiler Attendant. Manageme...
Tag this Judgment!